- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati
Nope, that violates her right to her property...which is herself. And it violates her right to be secure.
Same as above.
Doesn't matter if its a right or a privilege. Rights trump privileges and rights end at another persons rights. But for the record, it's a privilege.
There is no right to not be discriminated against. I've already told you why. Rights must be able to be exercised or they do not exist (in fact I challenge you to point out one single right that exists in the Constitution that cannot be exercised). As you cannot exercise a "right to not be discriminated against" without violating another persons right it in effect does not exist. And it does matter if you are accessing private resources because those private resources are owned by an individual that has rights to those resources where the consumer does not have a right to those resources. As for the oppression statement...no ones right is being violated...because there is no right to not be discriminated against.
Does my employer have a right to sexual harass me if he owns the property?
Nope, that violates her right to her property...which is herself. And it violates her right to be secure.
How about a merchant who owns a business? Is sexually harassing someone a right or a privilege?
Same as above.
How about the act of discriminating someone? Is that a right or a privilege?
Doesn't matter if its a right or a privilege. Rights trump privileges and rights end at another persons rights. But for the record, it's a privilege.
The answer to both questions is those acts are neither. You are infringing on another person's right. It shouldn't matter if you are accessing public resources are private or employed by a public place or private. The accessing of goods and services is irrelevant. The act of discrimination is the violation as is the act of sexual harassment. Otherwise, what you create is oppression if we allow certain people the right to violate other people.
There is no right to not be discriminated against. I've already told you why. Rights must be able to be exercised or they do not exist (in fact I challenge you to point out one single right that exists in the Constitution that cannot be exercised). As you cannot exercise a "right to not be discriminated against" without violating another persons right it in effect does not exist. And it does matter if you are accessing private resources because those private resources are owned by an individual that has rights to those resources where the consumer does not have a right to those resources. As for the oppression statement...no ones right is being violated...because there is no right to not be discriminated against.